662 karma · joined July 7, 2025
Compute, however, clearly is not.
I continue to find that people strongly advocate for justice on exactly opposing sides, depending on who they have been told to think the “bad guy” is.
A master after my own heart.
I'm by no means citing that AI is perfect, or that there are no problems or challenges ahead, but the self-lobotomizing AI doomerism/rejection is turning otherwise intelligent people into a horde of anti-AI lemmings that are afraid to apply the critical thinking they believe is being lost by AI users.
These things are puppeteering blender to model things for gods sake. Are you all blind?
You're right. I didn't even need AI to get my point across.
If your audience is the AI pilled, your inability to sense your own slop is a signal of incompetence.
I know an artist who has done well for themselves. They have done so because they have revealed that they know what it is they sell. “I sell paper”
The artist is the source of value. An AI can produce visual media, but it can not be an artist. The artist is not one work, but the source of many arts.
Copyright is the protection of the creative work in a fixed media. It is not the protection of ideas or styles.
My thrust is therefore not that protection of creative work should be abolished, but that the notion of “theft” of ideas and styles is one that is not protected by copyright today, and only serves entrenched corporate interests.
We are either entering a world of hyperliquid culture or tyranny.
Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws.
In this way, I tend to think of the context environment on an agent is the "agent nav" -- it presents context, allows progressive disclosure, and if poorly designed, makes the agent flounder as a poorly designed UI/UX does.
I’m not sure why people think they understand IP law better than the courts just because they don’t like the answer
As it is, in this case.
Yes, yes you can.
See the number of startups that have finetuned or trained an OSS model to build their business on.
“But you have to have compute!”
Ok, and you’re writing OSS on a rock with no internet connection?
The world has all kinds of barriers, but if anyone has a chance of competing on the LLM from it’s not going to be by getting rid of fair use.
'Quality' is a function of filling in the gaps of the new tools, not eschewing them entirely.
If the materials were publicly available on a site and scraped? Fair use.
If they were distributed illegally and acquired through that distribution? Cooked.
If you scraped it AND saved it? Cooked.
But let's focus on how this validates the belief that "AI bad."
The actual Treasury Announce here - https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616/
"The Autistici Inventati is an Italy-based far-left organization that provides a range of technological tools and services to violent left-wing extremist groups, including website hosting on foreign servers, encrypted email accounts, chat and video conferencing, and digital architecture associated with its “Noblogs” platform. Autistici Inventati identifies itself as an “anti-fascist” and “anti-militarist” organization opposed to capitalism and exclusively provides its services to vetted individuals, collectives, and groups it perceives to be aligned with its ideology, including to sanctioned terrorist organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been designated by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for its use of terrorist tactics leading to thousands of deaths in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria since its establishment in 1984.
Autistici Inventati is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, an act of terrorism."
The insanity of attempting to prevent AI learning (which is a direct consequence of the nature of observable information) because of the myth of intellectual property is the main driver of this type of behavior.
AI only = no copyright.
“A Single Piece of American Cheese” got a copyright because it had human involvement in compositing.
Theatre D’Opera did not because it was primarily prompt driven.
Thaler didn’t because he said it was machine derived.
Humans must be involved for a copyright.
For now, and into the future, I hope that we protect that unique and novel idea of an anthropomorphic mouse, which should be expanded to cover all forms of anthropomorphism, if we're being honest with ourselves.
And, to that point, the protection of that idea should also extend to the (clearly infringing) hit 90s YA book series Animorphs, as it somewhat sounds like anthropomorphism.
Protect their rights! Anything produced within the conceptual acreage that has been clearly marked and claimed is theft!
It seems obvious to me that you’d need someone to point at a thing and say “pay attention to that”, as a baseline, to have any results at all with the current architecture and technology
I continue to be dismayed at how simple it has become to turn people towards hate.